Sukkah 10b — the Talmud in English

Until the conclusion of the last Festival day of the festival,

since they were designated for the mitzva of the sukkah.

But if he stipulated concerning them

before the festival, at the time when he put them up, and said: “I do not set myself apart from them, and the sanctity of the mitzva of the sukkah shall not take effect upon them during the first twilight of the Festival of Sukkot”—

everything follows his stipulation.

And he may use them whenever he wishes.

For the sanctity does not take effect upon the decorations of the sukkah for all the days of the festival, unless they were designated for their mitzva during the twilight at the entry of the Festival of Sukkot, in which case we say: “Since they were set aside during twilight, they were set aside for the entire day.” But if, during the first twilight of the festival, he did not designate them for their mitzva, as, for example, he said, “I do not set myself apart from them,” then the sanctity no longer takes effect upon them afterward, to prohibit them for all the days of the festival.

Nevertheless, there is here a proof for the words of Rav Hisda, that it is possible to spread a sheet in the sukkah for decoration. For the beraita brought the common practice of spreading decorated sheets in the sukkah.

And the Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps,

that which the beraita teaches, “He decorated it with colored hangings and decorated sheets,” refers to a case in which he spread them

from the side

over the walls of the sukkah. But as for spreading them above, beneath the roofing, perhaps even for the purpose of beautifying it this is prohibited, since the sheet is susceptible to impurity and is invalid for roofing.

It was stated: The decorations of the sukkah,

such as decorated sheets and colored hangings spread above for decoration,

do not diminish

the height of the

sukkah,

whether the matter concerns making it valid when it is higher than twenty cubits, or making it invalid when the height of the sukkah from its floor to the sheets is less than ten handbreadths. The reason is that the decorations are not considered the roofing of the sukkah. For if they were considered part of the roofing, they would be invalid because they are “susceptible to impurity.”

Rav Ashi said: And

if the sheets are spread

from the side,

on its walls, they

diminish

the width of the sukkah from the measure of seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, because it does not contain enough for his head, the majority of his body, and his table.

Menaḥem, the servant of Rav Ashi, his tunic became soaked in water,

his tunic was soaked in water,

and he spread it over the sukkah,

he spread it over the roofing of the sukkah in order to dry it.

Rav Ashi said to him: Remove it!

Remove it from the roofing, so that

they will not say

that people will say:

He is roofing with something susceptible to impurity.

His servant Menaḥem said to him: Why do you fear that people will err?

But they see it

for the people see

that it is wet,

and it is evident to everyone that you did not place it there in order to roof the sukkah, but in order to dry it.

Rav Ashi said to him: Indeed,

I am speaking to you about when it dries,

that then you should remove it from the roofing. But as long as it is wet, there is no prohibition against leaving it on the roofing.

It was stated: The decorations of the sukkah,

sheets spread beneath the roofing for decoration,

that are distanced from it

that are distant from the roofing

four

handbreadths—

Rav Naḥman said:

The sukkah is

valid,

since they were made for decoration and not for roofing.

And

Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said:

The sukkah is

invalid,

even though he made them for decoration. And they held that since the sheets are distanced four handbreadths from the roofing, they are not nullified to the roofing, and they are like a tent that intervenes between one sitting beneath them and the interior space of the sukkah. [But Rav Naḥman held that every object made for decoration is nullified to the roofing and is not an independent tent.]

Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna [

who invalidate a sukkah whose decorations are distanced from it four handbreadths]

happened to arrive

they arrived

at the

to the house of

the Exilarch. Rav Naḥman lodged them

he lodged them

in

who was head of the court, and everyone in the Exilarch’s house obeyed his words,

in a sukkah whose decorations

were

distanced from it four handbreadths.

They remained silent and said nothing to him,

although in their opinion the sukkah was invalid.

He said to them,

Rav Naḥman: And did

the Sages retract their teaching?

Have you retracted your position that this sukkah is invalid!?

They said to him: We are agents of a mitzva,

because they had come to greet the Exilarch and fulfill the mitzva of greeting one’s teacher on the Festival,

and are exempt

we are

from the sukkah.

As explained in the Gemara below [25a], that agents of a mitzva are exempt from the sukkah.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

Although it was explained in the Mishna that it is prohibited to sleep beneath a canopy in the sukkah,

it is permitted to sleep in a curtained canopy

spread around the bed

in the sukkah,

even though it has a roof

like the other canopies, and it is not like the bed-posts, which do not have a roof one handbreadth wide.

And this is when it is not high

the canopy

ten

handbreadths from the bed, for then it has the status of a tent, and one who sleeps in it is considered to be sleeping in the tent of the canopy and not in the sukkah.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita:

One who sleeps in a canopy in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation.

And the Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing? When it is high

the canopy from the bed

ten

handbreadths, and it has the status of a tent; therefore one who sleeps in it is considered to be sleeping in the tent of the canopy and is not sleeping in the sukkah.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

It was objected

from what we learned in the Mishna [below, 20b]:

One who sleeps beneath a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation.

And the Gemara assumed that this refers to an ordinary bed, which is not ten handbreadths high.

It follows that the bed intervenes between one sitting beneath it and the interior space of the sukkah, and likewise the canopy should intervene?!

And the Gemara answers:

This is what Shmuel interpreted

he established

Shmuel

this Mishna

as referring to a bed ten handbreadths high

from the ground.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Come and hear

from what we learned in the Mishna:

Or if he spread

the sheet

over

canopies, it is invalid.

And it is proven that if the canopy has a roof, it intervenes between one sitting beneath it and the interior space of the sukkah.

And the Gemara answers:

There too, when they are ten handbreadths high,

handbreadths.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But it does not teach this

that only if the canopies are ten handbreadths high do they intervene between one sitting beneath them and the interior space of the sukkah. For, on the contrary, we find the opposite in a beraita.

For it was taught: Bed-posts

are

two,

two posts, one at the head of the bed and the other at its foot.

And canopies

are

four

posts, one at each corner of the bed.

If he spread

a sheet

over canopies,

the sukkah is

invalid.

But if he spread it

over bed-posts,

the sukkah is

valid, provided that the bed-posts are not higher than the bed

ten

handbreadths.

And it implies that only with regard to bed-posts, since they have no roof, do we say that it is possible to sleep in this bed until they are ten handbreadths higher than the bed, since one of the conditions stated concerning a tent is required: either a height of ten handbreadths or a roof.

By implication, canopies,

which have a roof, invalidate the sukkah

even though they are not ten handbreadths high,

since they have a roof and are considered a tent. And if so, the same law applies to a canopy that has a roof: even though it is not ten handbreadths high, it invalidates sitting beneath it.

And the Gemara answers: Indeed, canopies invalidate the sukkah even if they are not ten handbreadths high. Nevertheless, one cannot compare a canopy to canopies and say that a canopy too should be considered a tent, even though it is not ten handbreadths high from the bed. For

canopies are different, since they are fixed.

They are firmly attached to the bed. Therefore, although they are not ten handbreadths high, they are considered a tent. But a canopy, which is not firmly fixed, is not considered a tent unless it is ten handbreadths high.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But what of a sukkah atop a sukkah, which is fixed

the upper one atop the lower one,

and

even so

Shmuel said [

above, 10a]:

As its validity

of a sukkah, namely, at a height of ten handbreadths, the measure required for a valid sukkah,

so is its invalidity

of the lower one through the upper one; this is specifically when the upper one is ten handbreadths high, and it is considered a sukkah.

It is difficult: Why, with canopies, does one who sits beneath them not fulfill his obligation even when the canopies are not ten handbreadths high? Behold, “as its validity, so is its invalidity”?! And the Gemara answers:

They said: There,

with a sukkah beneath a sukkah,

for invalidating the sukkah

the lower one, it comes; specifically

at ten

handbreadths is the sukkah above it considered another sukkah, and it invalidates the sukkah beneath it by the law of a sukkah beneath a sukkah.

But

here,

where we have not come to invalidate the sukkah, but rather one who sleeps beneath the sheet spread over the canopy is not considered to be sleeping in the sukkah,

for

the law of the canopy was stated only

to make

the sheet have the status of

“a tent,”

behold,

with less

in height, less

than ten

handbreadths,

it is also a tent.

Since the canopy is fixed and firmly attached to its place.

In tractate Berakhot [chapter three] it is explained that one who stands naked, in a manner that he can see his nakedness with his eyes, may not recite sacred words, as it is stated: “And he shall not see in you an indecent matter.” The Gemara now discusses whether one who sits naked in a canopy and takes his head outside the canopy is likewise prohibited from reciting sacred words, or whether, since his head is outside the canopy and his body is inside the canopy, the canopy serves for him as a garment, and he is permitted to recite the Shema:

Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said in the name of Shmuel: One who sleeps naked in a canopy, if he takes his head outside the canopy, may recite the Shema.

And he is not prohibited on account of “And he shall not see in you an indecent matter,” since the canopy does not have the status of a tent, and he is like one who takes his head outside his cloak. But if the canopy were considered a tent, taking his head outside it would not help him, since we have an established principle that wherever the majority of a person is found, there his body is found. And he is considered as though his head too were inside the canopy, and he sees his nakedness.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

It was objected

from what we learned:

One who sleeps naked in a canopy shall not take his head outside the canopy and recite the Shema?!

And the Gemara answers:

Here,

where we learned that he shall not take his head outside the canopy and recite,

with what are we dealing? When it is high

the canopy

ten

handbreadths, and it is considered a tent. But Shmuel stated his ruling concerning a canopy that is not ten handbreadths high, in which case it is considered a garment.

This too is evidently so,

that the reference is to a canopy ten handbreadths high,

as the latter clause teaches: “To what is this comparable? To one standing naked in a house, who shall not take his head outside the window and recite the Shema.”

Learn from it

that the beraita spoke of a canopy made like a house, and a house is ten handbreadths high.